NY Times: Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look

[marmar]

News Analysis
Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look
By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: January 25, 2009


WASHINGTON — Only five days into the Obama presidency, members of the new administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are already dancing around one of the most politically delicate questions about the financial bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge swath of the nation’s banking system?

Privately, most members of the Obama economic team concede that the rapid deterioration of the country’s biggest banks, notably Bank of America and Citigroup, is bound to require far larger investments of taxpayer money, atop the more than $300 billion of taxpayer money already poured into those two financial institutions and hundreds of others.

But if hundreds of billions of dollars of new investment is needed to shore up those banks, and perhaps their competitors, what do taxpayers get in return? And how do the risks escalate as government’s role expands from a few bailouts to control over a vast portion of the financial sector of the world’s largest economy?

The Obama administration is making only glancing references to those questions. In an interview Sunday on “This Week” on ABC, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, alluded to internal debate when she was asked whether nationalization, or partial nationalization, of the largest banks was a good idea. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html

[mike_c]

1. fuck banking-- nationalize HEALTH CARE!

Or nationalize them both, for all I care, as long as the greedy rat bastards responsible for this mess are left with no more than the rest of us!

[bluestateguy]

2. I guessing that route would likely be cheaper than more bailout money?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. This pretty much puts the silver bullet in the grand concept of capitalism & free markets.